Simple and babe like truth : Scriptural sufficiency

[Tantum_ergo]

Our Church also proclaims that while scripture is inspired and inerrent, ‘private’ interpretation of Scripture is neither.

Only the authority instituted by Christ Himself through the Holy Spirit can interpret inspired, inerrant Scripture in an inspired inerrant way.

Any other person/group. . .cannot.

Or can you explain otherwise, JA, why millions of Protestants read the very same ‘inspired and inerrant’ Scripture that was interpreted by ALL Christianity for 1500 years in ONE way to read something COMPLETELY DIFFERENT from that ‘one’ way NOW?

You know what I mean. The Real Presence, ordained clergy, Marian doctrines, divorce, contraception, homosexual actions, etc. all Scripturally taught ONE WAY (and still taught by the Catholic Church). . .yet suddenly some people read those very same passages and come up with completely different ‘takes’ on that inspired, inerrant Scripture which now contradict the ‘older’ teaching.

Or how one ‘group’ can read ONE passage and explain it in a way that contradicts the ‘interpretation’ of another ‘group’–not even the Catholic or Orthodox churches, mind you, but another "protestant’ group–as some Protestants remain strongly pro-life while others are pro-death, some still try to get ‘close’ to the Real Presence while others barely permit a ‘meal’ once a month?

Scripture. Inspired? Yes. Inerrant? Yes. Interpreted correctly and authoritatively OUTSIDE the Catholic Church? Nope. Why Scripture itself tells us to take our questions to “The Church”, not to “The Bible” for answers. . .have you forgotten?

 

[justinthemartyr]

There is a lot of confusion among Roman Catholics by what we mean of Scriptural sufficiency. We do not suggest that everything Christ ever said or did is recorded in Scripture. It is not an encyclopedia of all information, or even all spiritual information. Rather, it is sufficient for its purpose. This is best illustrated at the end of John:
And truly Jesus did many other signs in the presence of His disciples, which are not written in this book; but these are written that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing you may have life in His name (John 20:30,31).
See how simple this is?

Is everything written down? Nope. Of course not.

But what we do have written down is written for what? That we may believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing have life in His name!

I’ve also heard complaints that this verse only point to the Gospel of John. However, if you just think for a moment, you will see that if this statement only points to John, it proves too much! For if what we have written in the Gospel of John alone is able to do what John says (v.31), imagine what the ENTIRE DESPOSIT of Scripture would be able to do! If this single book is sufficient to do what John says it can do (the lesser), surely the whole record of Scripture can do even more (the greater).

So if you deny the Scripture is able to do what John says it can do (whether his Gospel alone or by extension the whole Scripture deposit), you are contending with God, not us.

True, Christs sheep will never perish, as long as they remain in Him and in His one flock. they have free will to leave just as a sheep has free will to run away amnd jump off a cliff and be lost forever. To not have free will is to have a non loving God, but a controlling God.

 

[De_Maria]

No need to give you a verse since none exist.

Good. Then why do you believe it?

If you believe a doctrine that says, “Scripture ALONE is the source of doctrine.”? And Scripture itself is not the source of that doctrine, then why do you believe it?

However my case is made from the nature of the Scriptures themselves which alone are inspired-inerrant.

Then your case comes from your own logical inference and not from Scripture alone. Because you have admitted that Scripture alone is not the source of the doctrine.

Does not your church believe them to be inspired-inerrant?

Yes. The Church teaches that Scripture is inspired of God and inerrant. It is also taught in Scripture.

Now, based on your logic. We can show that the Church makes the same logical conclusions from Scripture as you do. For instance. Scripture says that the Church is the Pillar and Foundation of Truth. Therefore, the Church logically infers that Scripture has declared the Church is infallible.

Why is the Church’s logical inference based on Scripture inferior to your logical inference based on Scripture?

Sincerely,

De Maria

 

[justinthemartyr]

The real question is do we find what Christ commanded within the perameters of sola scriptura?

If choas, division, dissention and splits in the body of Christ are what Chrost preached, then you would answer yes to this question.

We all know that Christ preached them to be one as He and the Father are one, so that the world would know that he had come and was True.

That there be no divisions among them and to avoid dissenters.

I think that the fruits of sola scriptura have made themselves evident in this almost 500 years test period of the false doctrine.

or do we want 50K or more divisions?

 

[justasking4]

De Maria;3133798]

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
No need to give you a verse since none exist.
De Maria
Good. Then why do you believe it?

If you believe a doctrine that says, “Scripture ALONE is the source of doctrine.”? And Scripture itself is not the source of that doctrine, then why do you believe it?

See below.

Quote:justasking4
However my case is made from the nature of the Scriptures themselves which alone are inspired-inerrant.

Then your case comes from your own logical inference and not from Scripture alone. Because you have admitted that Scripture alone is not the source of the doctrine.

Not so. It is grounded in the nature of the Scriptures themselves. Using logical inferences in no way undermines my position.

Quote:justasking4
Does not your church believe them to be inspired-inerrant?
De Maria
Yes. The Church teaches that Scripture is inspired of God and inerrant. It is also taught in Scripture.

Then why do we need to argue this particular point? What we then need to do is to compare the inspired-inerrant Scriptures with the Sacred Traditions that are outside the Scriptures. Thats what we need to discuss.

Now, based on your logic. We can show that the Church makes the same logical conclusions from Scripture as you do. For instance. Scripture says that the Church is the Pillar and Foundation of Truth. Therefore, the Church logically infers that Scripture has declared the Church is infallible

.
I agree with half of this but not that your church or any church is infallible.

Why is the Church’s logical inference based on Scripture inferior to your logical inference based on Scripture?

Your church comes to the same conclusion as protestants on the nature of the Scriptures. Where we disagree is that your church is infallible or that its Sacred Tradiitions are.

Sincerely,

De Maria

 

[justasking4]

The real question is do we find what Christ commanded within the perameters of sola scriptura?

If choas, division, dissention and splits in the body of Christ are what Chrost preached, then you would answer yes to this question.

We all know that Christ preached them to be one as He and the Father are one, so that the world would know that he had come and was True.

That there be no divisions among them and to avoid dissenters.

I think that the fruits of sola scriptura have made themselves evident in this almost 500 years test period of the false doctrine.

or do we want 50K or more divisions?

Do you believe that within the catholic church itself that there is total agree on everything? Keep in mind what the basis of unity is grounded in. Its the kind of the unity that exists in the Trinity. See John 17:20-21

 

[De_Maria]

Not so. It is grounded in the nature of the Scriptures themselves.

No it isn’t. Your logic is not inspired nor inerrant. Therefore it is possible that you may err.

Using logical inferences in no way undermines my position.

Yes, it does. The Scriptures themselves tell us that Scripture may be misunderstood: and misinterpreted:

2 Timothy 2
15 Carefully study to present thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth.

Now, if St. Paul must admonish even St. Timothy to handle rightly the word of God, then it means that the Scriptures can be misunderstood.

Acts Of Apostles 8
30 And Philip running thither, heard him reading the prophet Isaias. And he said: Thinkest thou that thou understandest what thou readest? 31 Who said: And how can I, unless some man shew me? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him.

So, an inerrant word needs an infallible interpreter.

Then why do we need to argue this particular point?

You are arguing that point. I wasn’t. All I asked was you prove that Scripture alone is sufficient for doctrine, from Scripture.

What we then need to do is to compare the inspired-inerrant Scriptures with the Sacred Traditions that are outside the Scriptures. Thats what we need to discuss.

Sure. Start another thread and we can tackle each Catholic and Protestant doctrine one by one. This thread is about "Simple and Babe like truth: Scriptural Sufficiency. You did enter this discussion to discuss that topic didn’t you?

Of course, derailing the thread would be a good way to obfuscate the truth. That truth being that Protestants can’t defend that doctrine from Scripture.

I agree with half of this but not that your church or any church is infallible.

But your disagreement is without foundation as the Scriptures plainly tell you that the Church is the pillar of truth and logical inference of the type you use to justify Sola Scriptura leads us to that conclusion.

In addition, there is a qualitive difference between the interpreters. The Bible has said that the Church is the Pillar of Truth. I see no mention of your inerrancy or infalliblity in the Scriptures. And since the Scriptures were written well before Luther and the Reformers, they fall under the same disadvantage. They are not pillars of truth. Only the Church is such.

Your church comes to the same conclusion as protestants on the nature of the Scriptures.

Its the other way around but lets not quibble.

Where we disagree is that your church is infallible or that its Sacred Tradiitions are.

Then you agree that the Scriptures alone are not sufficient for doctrine?

Sincerely,

De Maria

 

[alanjeddy]

Do you believe that within the catholic church itself that there is total agree on everything? Keep in mind what the basis of unity is grounded in. Its the kind of the unity that exists in the Trinity. See John 17:20-21

You ran as fast as you could from Elizabeth. Too hot in the kitchen for you. HA HA HA.

 

[alanjeddy]

Sola Scriptura == 30,000 Protestant Denominations. Wow!

 

[guanophore]

Do you believe that within the catholic church itself that there is total agree on everything? Keep in mind what the basis of unity is grounded in. Its the kind of the unity that exists in the Trinity. See John 17:20-21

I agree with your definition of unity here. The logical problem is where you seem to think that individuals must agree on everything in order for there to be unity. This is not, in fact, the case, as is testified in the NT. The unity is based on agreement with the Apostolic Doctrine. Those not in agreement with that doctrine are not (to a greater or lesser degree) Catholic. For example, if you believe in water baptism as a command of Christ, then to that extent you are “Catholic” in your belief. Also in the Trinity, the nature of Christ, and other doctrine (such as those found in the Apostles Creed). Now, I know from reading some of your posts that you reject part of the doctrine in the Apostles Creed. To the extent that you reject these doctrines, you are not Catholic, or you are separated from the unity of the Body by your rejection of that part of the Gospel.

 

[guanophore]

What we then need to do is to compare the inspired-inerrant Scriptures with the Sacred Traditions that are outside the Scriptures. Thats what we need to discuss.

Since there are no Sacred Traditions that exist “outside” the Scriptures, what is there to discuss?

And, even if there were, why would you “need” to discuss them, since you have already made up your mind that they are the “speculations of men”? What would be the purpose of such a discussion? Is it your plan to try to pursuade those weak in their faith to turn against the Teachings of the church?

Where we disagree is that your church is infallible or that its Sacred Tradiitions are.

It is your right to disagree, of course. However, it is not your right to attempt to pursuade others on this forum of the error you have chosen to embrace.

 

[justasking4]

De Maria;3134431]

Quote:
Originally Posted by justasking4
Not so. It is grounded in the nature of the Scriptures themselves.
De Maria
No it isn’t. Your logic is not inspired nor inerrant. Therefore it is possible that you may err.

i never said my logic is inspired or inerrant. I can err as all men can and do. This is why you should reject your church’ claim it cannot err. Fallible men can and do err.

Quote:justasking4
Using logical inferences in no way undermines my position.
De Maria
Yes, it does. The Scriptures themselves tell us that Scripture may be misunderstood: and misinterpreted:

I agree. Thats what you church has done in many cases.

2 Timothy 2
15 Carefully study to present thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly handling the word of truth.

Now, if St. Paul must admonish even St. Timothy to handle rightly the word of God, then it means that the Scriptures can be misunderstood.

Acts Of Apostles 8
30 And Philip running thither, heard him reading the prophet Isaias. And he said: Thinkest thou that thou understandest what thou readest? 31 Who said: And how can I, unless some man shew me? And he desired Philip that he would come up and sit with him.

So, an inerrant word needs an infallible interpreter.

None of these passages you quote here come even close to saying we need an infallible interpreter.

 

[justasking4]

Part 2

De Maria;3134431]

Quote:
I agree with half of this but not that your church or any church is infallible.
De Maria
But your disagreement is without foundation as the Scriptures plainly tell you that the Church is the pillar of truth and logical inference of the type you use to justify Sola Scriptura leads us to that conclusion.

Where does it say in I Timothy 3:15 that the church is infallible though?

In addition, there is a qualitive difference between the interpreters. The Bible has said that the Church is the Pillar of Truth. I see no mention of your inerrancy or infalliblity in the Scriptures. And since the Scriptures were written well before Luther and the Reformers, they fall under the same disadvantage. They are not pillars of truth. Only the Church is such

.
Here is what the New American Bible says on I Timothy 3:14-16:
6 [14-16] In case there is some delay in the visit to Timothy at Ephesus planned for the near future, the present letter is being sent on ahead to arm and enlighten him in his task of preserving sound Christian conduct in the Ephesian church. The care he must exercise over this community is required by the profound nature of Christianity. It centers in Christ, appearing in human flesh, vindicated by the holy Spirit; the mystery of his person was revealed to the angels, announced to the Gentiles, and accepted by them in faith. He himself was taken up (through his resurrection and ascension) to the divine glory (1 Tim 3:16). This passage apparently includes part of a liturgical hymn used among the Christian communities in and around Ephesus. It consists of three couplets in typical Hebrew balance: flesh-spirit (contrast), seen-proclaimed (complementary), world-glory (contrast).

No mention of the claims you are making here and this is from the The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.

Quote:
Your church comes to the same conclusion as protestants on the nature of the Scriptures.

Its the other way around but lets not quibble.

Quote:justasking4
Where we disagree is that your church is infallible or that its Sacred Tradiitions are.
De Maria
Then you agree that the Scriptures alone are not sufficient for doctrine?

Of course they are sufficent. Even your own church desires to base all its doctrines on the Scriptures even though it fails to do so.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

… Even your own church desires to base all its doctrines on the Scriptures…

I don’t agree. The Church desired to–an in fact does–base all its doctrines on the Word of God, and as the Church teaches, “Sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture form one sacred deposit of the word of God” (Vatican II, Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation, Dei verbum, 10). All the doctrines of the Church are based on the “deposit of faith, once and for all delivered to the saints.” (Jude 3). No where does it state that the entire deposit of faith was written in Scripture. That is a “tradition of men” which contradicts the Word of God.

Even Protestant authors admit that the doctrines of the Church were handed on through Scripture and Tradition. For instance, according to Protestant historian J.N.D. Kelly:

…in tradition the Church retained, as a legacy from the apostles which was embedded in all the organs of her institutional life, an unerring grasp of the real purport and meaning of the revelation to which Scripture and tradition alike bore witness" (Early Christian Doctrines, pp. 47-48)

 

[justasking4]

itsjustdave1988;3137591]I don’t agree. The Church desired to–an in fact does–base all its doctrines on the Word of God, and as the Church teaches, “Sacred tradition and Sacred Scripture form one sacred deposit of the word of God” (Vatican II, Dogmatic Constitution on Divine Revelation, Dei verbum, 10). All the doctrines of the Church are based on the “deposit of faith, once and for all delivered to the saints.” (Jude 3). No where does it state that the entire deposit of faith was written in Scripture. That is a “tradition of men” which contradicts the Word of God.
Where do the apostles teach that Mary was conceived without sin, assumed into heaven or prayed to?
If the doctrines of the church are claimed to be based on "“deposit of faith, once and for all delivered to the saints.” and the only apostolic writings we have are the Scriptures and they don’t teach that then you don’t have all doctrines based on the Scriptures.

Even Protestant authors admits that the doctrines of the Church were handed on through tradition. For instance, according to Protestant historian J.N.D. Kelly:

 

[itsjustdave1988]

… What we then need to do is to compare the inspired-inerrant Scriptures with the Sacred Traditions that are outside the Scriptures. Thats what we need to discuss.

OK then, let’s begin with trying to discern which version of the Book of Daniel is inspired by God. In Sacred Tradition which teaches the faithful that the version found in every ancient Christian manuscript of Sacred Scripture used by every Christian Church since the advent of Christianity is the inspired version of the Book of Daniel, not the truncated version found in the Protestant Bible.

Please provide evidence from the Bible alone that the version of the Book of Daniel used by all Christianity prior to the advent of Protestantism is not inspired by God, not part of the “deposit of faith once and for all delivered unto the saints.” (Jude 3).

 

[De_Maria]

Part 2

Where does it say in I Timothy 3:15 that the church is infallible though?

Where it says that the Church is the Pillar of Truth.

Here is what the New American Bible says on I Timothy 3:14-16:
6 [14-16] In case there is some delay in the visit to Timothy at Ephesus planned for the near future, the present letter is being sent on ahead to arm and enlighten him in his task of preserving sound Christian conduct in the Ephesian church. The care he must exercise over this community is required by the profound nature of Christianity. It centers in Christ, appearing in human flesh, vindicated by the holy Spirit; the mystery of his person was revealed to the angels, announced to the Gentiles, and accepted by them in faith. He himself was taken up (through his resurrection and ascension) to the divine glory (1 Tim 3:16). This passage apparently includes part of a liturgical hymn used among the Christian communities in and around Ephesus. It consists of three couplets in typical Hebrew balance: flesh-spirit (contrast), seen-proclaimed (complementary), world-glory (contrast).

No mention of the claims you are making here and this is from the The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops.

I guess you don’t want to discuss the sufficiency of Scripture alone.

So, since you have redirected this thread, I shall humor you.

No. It doesn’t mention that in the footnote of the NAB. Is there some reason why it should? Is it the apologetic version or something?

However, the Douay Rheims is very clear about it:
15 “The pillar and ground of the truth”… Therefore the church of the living God can never uphold error, nor bring in corruptions, superstition, or idolatry.
drbo.org/chapter/61003.htm

I’m sure my compadres and I could muster up all kinds of apologetical articles all the way back to the Church Fathers. But this isn’t the Church infallibility thread, is it?

Of course they are sufficent.

We don’t disagree on that. We disagree on your contention that the Scriptures ALONE are sufficient for doctrine and I await your proof from Scripture.

Even your own church desires to base all its doctrines on the Scriptures even though it fails to do so.

Actually the Church does a great job of supporting every single doctrine with Scripture. Certainly a better job than you or any Protestant has done with Sola Scriptura. A doctrine which actually contradicts Scripture.

So, focus grasshoppa,
this is the thread where you are supposed to prove the sufficiency of the Scriptures alone. If you want to debate anything else, start another thread.

Sincerely,

De Maria

 

[guanophore]

Where do the apostles teach that Mary was conceived without sin, assumed into heaven or prayed to?

If the doctrines of the church are claimed to be based on "“deposit of faith, once and for all delivered to the saints.” and the only apostolic writings we have are the Scriptures and they don’t teach that then you don’t have all doctrines based on the Scriptures.

You are correct, IF this were true. But, we know that all of the Teaching was not committed to the scriptures. Technically, none of the doctrines are “based” on the scriptures. All of them are based on the grace and truth that came through Jesus Christ. These doctrines were taught to the Apostles by Him, and the Apostles faithfully handed them down. This is what is known as the Apostolic Succession. Decades later, much of the Teaching was put into writing, and centuries later, the canon was closed. In the meantime, all of those doctrines were taught.

 

[De_Maria]

i never said my logic is inspired or inerrant. I can err as all men can and do. This is why you should reject your church’ claim it cannot err. Fallible men can and do err.

Uh, you forget, the Bible says the Church is the Pillar and Foundation of Truth. Therefore, She can’t err.

I agree. Thats what you church has done in many cases.

But faithfully and correctly. Unlike those who do not have the charism of infallibility given the Church by the Word of God.

None of these passages you quote here come even close to saying we need an infallible interpreter.

But they do show that Scripture can be misinterpreted. And since Scripture says that the Church is infallible and we should listen to Her, that means that Her interpretations are sure to be true.

Oh man, I’m getting good at your logical inference technique!!

When are we going to get back on topic?

Sincerely,

De Maria

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Where do the apostles teach that Mary was conceived without sin, assumed into heaven or prayed to?
If the doctrines of the church are claimed to be based on "“deposit of faith, once and for all delivered to the saints.” and the only apostolic writings we have are the Scriptures and they don’t teach that then you don’t have all doctrines based on the Scriptures.

Your error is that you presume that the “deposit of faith” must have been all written down in the first century. However that premise is nothing more than a false “tradition of men.”

The deposit of faith which St. Jude speaks of, in fact, COULD NOT have been all written down, because he says that it was “once and for all delivered unto the saints” before the saints finished the writing the NT. It must have been delivered “once and for all” prior to him writing his NT text, the Epistle of Jude. But how? Oral Tradition. Oral Tradition continued to be the authoritative means in which much of that deposit was handed on.

So, the Catholic doctrines about Mary are based upon “deposit of faith” which was handed on through Sacred Tradition of the Church, which is unwritten, and Sacred Scripture of the Church.The doctrines about Mary are indeed nourished and regulated by Sacred Scripture, but in a typological sense.

See here:

Doctrines about Mary are Biblical

Now, your turn to answer my question with regard to the Book of Daniel using Scripture alone, if you are up to the challenge.